Skip to content

What Is Agrivoltaics?

Updated 8 October 20267 min readNext-Gen & Off-Grid

Agrivoltaics is growing crops or grazing livestock on the same land that carries a solar array. It works because of an asymmetry in how the two use light: a photovoltaic cell responds to almost every extra photon, while most plants stop responding well before midday sun reaches full strength. Sharing the surplus costs the crop far less than it gives the array.

Key takeaways

  • Photosynthesis saturates: above a certain light level a leaf cannot use more, while a solar cell keeps converting almost linearly.
  • The shade is intermittent, not constant — a given plant moves in and out of it as the sun tracks, which is gentler than permanent shading.
  • Panels change the microclimate beneath them: less evaporation, moderated temperature extremes and reduced wind, which in dry climates can help more than the lost light hurts.
  • The crop returns the favour. Transpiring plants cool the air under the array, and cooler modules produce more.
  • Land equivalent ratio is the metric that matters: how much land it would take to produce both outputs separately.
On this page
  1. Sharing a field, not splitting it
  2. The asymmetry: plants stop, panels do not
  3. The microclimate underneath
  4. What the panels get back
  5. The design variables
  6. Land equivalent ratio, and where this does not work

Sharing a field, not splitting it

The obvious way to put panels and crops on the same land would be to divide it: panels here, wheat there. Agrivoltaics does something different — it puts the array above the crop and shares the same square metres, accepting that each use gets less than it would alone while the pair together get more than either could.

That only makes sense because of one asymmetry in how the two capture light, and it is worth stating precisely before any of the design questions.

Section through an agrivoltaic installation. Elevated solar panels on widely spaced rows sit above a crop, with sunlight reaching the ground between and around them. Arrows show direct beam passing through the gaps, diffuse light arriving from the open sky, and light reflected from the ground. A tractor passes beneath the raised mounting, and the shadow of one row is shown moving across the crop as the sun tracks.Section through an agrivoltaic installation. Elevated solar panels on widely spaced rows sit above a crop, with sunlight reaching the ground between and around them. Arrows show direct beam passing through the gaps, diffuse light arriving from the open sky, and light reflected from the ground. A tractor passes beneath the raised mounting, and the shadow of one row is shown moving across the crop as the sun tracks.
The array is raised and spread out rather than packed. What reaches the crop is a mixture of gap light, diffuse sky light, and a moving shadow that never rests on one plant for long.

The asymmetry: plants stop, panels do not

A photovoltaic cell converts light roughly in proportion to how much arrives; double the irradiance and the current roughly doubles. Photosynthesis does not behave this way at all.

As light increases from darkness, a leaf's rate of photosynthesis rises steeply — then bends over and flattens. Beyond the light saturation point, the biochemistry downstream of light capture becomes the limit: enzyme rates, carbon dioxide supply through the stomata, and water availability. Extra photons arrive at a system that cannot use them and are dissipated as heat, or worse, contribute to photoinhibition.

Chart of photosynthesis rate against photosynthetically active radiation. The curve rises steeply from darkness, bends at the light saturation point and flattens. A vertical band marks full midday summer sun, well to the right of saturation for a typical C3 crop. A second straight line shows photovoltaic output rising almost linearly across the whole range, with the shaded region between saturation and full sun labelled as the surplus available to share.Chart of photosynthesis rate against photosynthetically active radiation. The curve rises steeply from darkness, bends at the light saturation point and flattens. A vertical band marks full midday summer sun, well to the right of saturation for a typical C3 crop. A second straight line shows photovoltaic output rising almost linearly across the whole range, with the shaded region between saturation and full sun labelled as the surplus available to share.
Illustrative shapes. The shaded region is the whole idea: light the plant cannot use, arriving at a device that can.

How much surplus exists depends on the plant. C3 crops — wheat, potatoes, most leafy vegetables and berries — saturate at relatively modest light levels and often have plenty to spare at midday. C4 crops such as maize and sorghum evolved in bright conditions, saturate much higher, and have far less to give. Shade tolerance varies enormously even within those groups, which is why crop selection is the first design decision and not an afterthought.

One more detail matters: under an array, the shade moves. As the sun tracks, each row's shadow sweeps across the ground, so a given plant spends part of the day shaded and part in full light rather than sitting under permanent gloom. Plants integrate light over the day, and intermittent shading is considerably gentler than its average suggests. Diffuse light, which arrives from the whole sky rather than from the sun's disc, reaches the crop even under a panel — the same physics that keeps arrays working in cloudy weather.

The microclimate underneath

Shade is only the most obvious change. An array over a field alters several things at once, and in dry climates the sum is frequently positive for the crop.

Diagram comparing conditions in an open field and beneath an agrivoltaic array. In the open field, high midday temperature, strong evaporation from the soil, and unobstructed wind. Beneath the array, lower peak temperature, reduced soil evaporation and moisture retained for longer, reduced wind speed, and a slightly warmer night because the panels reduce radiative cooling.Diagram comparing conditions in an open field and beneath an agrivoltaic array. In the open field, high midday temperature, strong evaporation from the soil, and unobstructed wind. Beneath the array, lower peak temperature, reduced soil evaporation and moisture retained for longer, reduced wind speed, and a slightly warmer night because the panels reduce radiative cooling.
Less peak heat, less evaporation, less wind, and a slightly milder night. Whether that adds up to a benefit depends on whether the crop was short of light or short of water.
  • Evaporation falls. Less direct sun on the soil means less water lost from it, so moisture persists between irrigation or rainfall. In water-limited systems this is often the dominant effect.
  • Peak temperature moderates. Shaded crops avoid the highest leaf temperatures, which matters because heat stress closes stomata and stops photosynthesis regardless of how much light is available.
  • Wind is reduced, lowering transpiration and mechanical damage — though it also reduces drying after rain, which is not always welcome.
  • Nights are slightly warmer, because panels reduce radiative cooling to the open sky. That can delay frost damage at the margins of a season.

The balance is climatic. Where crops are light-limited — cool, cloudy, high-latitude — shading costs real yield. Where they are water- or heat-limited, the shelter can more than repay the lost photons.

What the panels get back

The exchange is not one-way. A crop transpires, and evaporating water absorbs a great deal of energy, so the air beneath a vegetated array is cooler than over bare soil or gravel.

Cooler air cools the modules, and cooler modules are more efficient — the relationship set out in why panels lose efficiency in hot weather. A living crop underneath is a modest, free cooling system for the array above it.

Two honest qualifications. The gain is small — a modest improvement in conversion efficiency, not a transformation. And it is easily outweighed by the electricity deliberately given up in spacing rows further apart. The case for agrivoltaics rests on the two outputs together, not on this effect.

The design variables

Almost every agrivoltaic decision is a choice about how much light to let past, and there are only a few ways to make it. Spacing protects the panels as well as the crop, because when a low sun throws one row's shadow onto the next, even partial shade on a module costs it disproportionate output.

Four design variables shown side by side. Mounting height, from low structures suitable for grazing to tall structures allowing machinery beneath. Row spacing, from tightly packed to widely spread. Panel density within a row, including gaps between modules. Tracking strategy, showing panels following the sun for maximum generation versus panels turned to admit light to the crop at critical times of day.Four design variables shown side by side. Mounting height, from low structures suitable for grazing to tall structures allowing machinery beneath. Row spacing, from tightly packed to widely spread. Panel density within a row, including gaps between modules. Tracking strategy, showing panels following the sun for maximum generation versus panels turned to admit light to the crop at critical times of day.
Height, spacing, density and tracking. The first is set by what must drive underneath; the rest set how the light is divided.
What each variable buys and costs
VariableIncreasing it gives the cropAnd costs the array
Mounting heightMore diffuse light, a more even shadow, machinery accessStructure, wind loading, installation and maintenance access
Row spacingMore direct light, longer unshaded periodsGeneration per hectare, and more land per unit of output
Gaps between modules in a rowDappled rather than solid shadeGeneration, roughly in proportion to the gaps
Vertical mountingAn almost unshaded middle of the dayMidday output, in exchange for a morning and evening peak
Tracking strategyLight released when the crop needs it mostSome generation, by leaving the optimal sun-tracking angle

Design relationships rather than recommendations: the right combination depends on the crop, the climate, the machinery and the latitude. Field trials are how a specific combination gets validated.

Vertical bifacial arrays deserve their own note: mounted upright, usually facing east and west, they cast long shadows early and late and almost none at midday, and they leave wide strips of fully workable land between rows. They also shift generation toward morning and evening, which can suit a grid better than another midday peak — the same trade that makes an east-west orientation worth considering on an ordinary roof.

Land equivalent ratio, and where this does not work

The metric that makes sense of the trade is the land equivalent ratio. Take the crop yield achieved under the array as a fraction of what the same land would yield alone; take the electricity generated as a fraction of what a conventional array on that land would produce; add them. Above 1.0, the combination uses land better than separating the two uses.

Diagram comparing three cases. A field of crops alone producing full crop yield. A conventional solar array alone producing full electrical output. An agrivoltaic field producing a large fraction of the crop yield plus a large fraction of the electrical output, whose sum exceeds one, meaning less total land is needed than growing and generating separately.Diagram comparing three cases. A field of crops alone producing full crop yield. A conventional solar array alone producing full electrical output. An agrivoltaic field producing a large fraction of the crop yield plus a large fraction of the electrical output, whose sum exceeds one, meaning less total land is needed than growing and generating separately.
Neither use is complete on shared land. The question is whether the two fractions add to more than one — which is a measurement, not an assumption.

Where it works least well is as predictable as the physics. Light-limited climates, C4 crops that use everything available, short-season crops needing maximum light in a narrow window, and operations whose machinery simply cannot work beneath a structure. Even where it can, tillage and harvest raise dust that settles on the glass, which can make cleaning the modules without damaging them a more regular task than on an ordinary roof. Where it works best: hot and water-limited regions, shade-tolerant and high-value crops, grazing, and places where land itself is the scarce resource rather than sunlight.

That last point is the honest framing. Agrivoltaics is not a way to get free electricity from a field. It is a way to stop treating land as something that can only do one job — and, like the surplus-energy question on the electrical side, it is fundamentally about making better use of something you already have.

Frequently asked questions

Doesn't shading always reduce crop yield?

It reduces the light, but not always the yield. Shade-tolerant crops and those already light-saturated at midday can yield much the same under a well-spaced array, and in hot, dry conditions some yield more because water stress and heat stress fall. Crops that need full sun through a short season lose out.

Is this the same as putting panels on a field?

No. A conventional ground-mounted array is designed to maximise electricity, with rows spaced and tilted for that alone and the land beneath effectively out of production. An agrivoltaic array deliberately gives up some generation — through height, spacing or tracking strategy — to keep the land productive.

What about machinery and access?

That is often the binding constraint. Mounting height and row spacing have to suit whatever has to drive underneath, and retrofitting clearance is not practical. Systems intended for grazing can sit much lower than those intended for a tractor and a harvester.

Do panels really produce more over crops?

They can produce modestly more than over bare ground, because transpiring plants cool the air beneath the array, and cooler modules are more efficient. The gain is small compared with the electricity given up by spacing the rows more widely; the case for agrivoltaics rests on combined land productivity, not on this effect.

Does it work with livestock as well as crops?

Grazing is the most established form, and the interaction runs both ways: animals get shade and shelter, the vegetation gets managed without mowing, and the array avoids the fire and shading risk of overgrown grass. The constraints are fencing, cable protection and mounting height.

Sources

Named organisations whose published material underpins this article. Where no link is given, the source is named rather than linked.

Editorial Team

Research, drafting and review

Articles are drafted from primary engineering and physics references with AI-assisted tools, then reviewed and fact-checked line by line by a human editor before publication. We publish explanations, not recommendations: no products, no pricing, no country-specific rules, and no invented author personas.

Last reviewed 8 October 2026. How we research and review

Next-Gen & Off-Grid

Tidal Energy vs Wave Energy

Tides are a clock, waves are weather. How each ocean energy resource works, why predictability changes everything, and why survival loads dominate both.

Updated 8 October 20267 min read